I guess it depends on the management or the locale... We had one for a while until the Feds mashed their dinner. The strip mall it was in was marginal already. It had a CVS which was safe enough and a usual assortment of stores...Papa John's, Hollywood Video, BofA. Two of the stores were dollar stores. So not upscale by any means.

While the dispensary was there I would compare the folks shambling about as similar to a seedy Liquor Store. Cars got broken into, store windows were occasionally broken. Correlation vs causation, who knows, I live in a town full of assholes and this was probably just a convergence point. It shifted my opinion of dispensaries quite a bit though.

Rigorous scientific studies have been disproving the link between marijuana and all manner of negative behaviors for decades and it hasn't changed the reaction to its use by the authorities one jot. The reason we crack down on marijuana isn't because it's a nuisance; it's because lots of people make lots of money from doing so.

Heron:Rigorous scientific studies have been disproving the link between marijuana and all manner of negative behaviors for decades and it hasn't changed the reaction to its use by the authorities one jot. The reason we crack down on marijuana isn't because it's a nuisance; it's because lots of people make lots of money from doing so.

Heron:Rigorous scientific studies have been disproving the link between marijuana and all manner of negative behaviors for decades and it hasn't changed the reaction to its use by the authorities one jot. The reason we crack down on marijuana isn't because it's a nuisance; it's because lots of people make lots of money from doing so.

big tobacco could also make lots of money from it, so why isn't big tobacco? make cannibus 'miller in a can', and tobacco 'milller in a glass bottle' like that old class division advertisment. more money, more revenue streams from cannibus uses, can charge more for tobacco itself as a luxury item, bam, more profit.

Heron:Rigorous scientific studies have been disproving the link between marijuana and all manner of negative behaviors for decades and it hasn't changed the reaction to its use by the authorities one jot. The reason we crack down on marijuana isn't because it's a nuisance; it's because lots of people make lots of money from doing so.

Weaponized THC. The military industrial complex will make a mint on dope bombs. Every Taliban fighter will come out of hiding looking for munchies after "toke" the whole tribal area. Once this has become common place the manufactures will look to expand to the civilian market. People are making a lot of money of of enforcement we just need to change who's making the money and legal change will follow.

Legal *snerk* medical weed won't increase crime where the dispensary itself is located but as it drives the illegal weed dealers out of business crime in those neighborhoods will increase.

So if you ever buy "medical" marijuana you are no better than the CIA that invented crack and dumped it into the inner city

Anyone who compares crack to marijuana has no idea what they are talking about. As someone who lived in Detroit for 50 years (still work there...sigh) I can tell you that what crack does to people is worse than anything you can imagine. It RUINS people.

Weed? Most I have seen is that it makes people lazy and might give them breathing problems. As far as I am concerned if I found the genie in the lamp, I would wish alcohol out of existance and let marijuana be legal. I know far too many people whose lives have been ruined by booze.

I've loved Jon Stewart's comparison on the Daily Show the past few days. Just shows how ridiculously out of wack out priorities have gotten. For those who didn't see the show. It's a $200 fine for serving a 22 ounce coke, while a $100 fine for being caught with an ounce of weed in NY.

We've become convinced that policing half the issues while gracefully pushing the others off to the side like they don't matter will save us from our own mistakes.

ExperianScaresCthulhu:Heron: Rigorous scientific studies have been disproving the link between marijuana and all manner of negative behaviors for decades and it hasn't changed the reaction to its use by the authorities one jot. The reason we crack down on marijuana isn't because it's a nuisance; it's because lots of people make lots of money from doing so.

big tobacco could also make lots of money from it, so why isn't big tobacco? make cannibus 'miller in a can', and tobacco 'milller in a glass bottle' like that old class division advertisment. more money, more revenue streams from cannibus uses, can charge more for tobacco itself as a luxury item, bam, more profit.

/i think users are losers//but there's worse out there

The tobacco companies don't want to see legal weed because it's really easy to grow enough behind your garage for personal use. They can't get a cut if they aren't part of distribution.

Big brewers and distillers don't want to see legal weed because drunk and high are essentially interchangeable types of intoxication, and it's in their best interests to limit recreational drugs that could be alternatives to alcohol.

Cotton growers don't want to see legal weed because legalizing marijuana means hemp can proliferate, which can make cheap and durable clothing at a fraction of the price of cotton.

There is a lot of money at stake, and a lot of people interested in preserving the status quo. Only if/when governments get desperate enough for additional tax revenue will marijuana sales be legalized.

bhcompy:Heron: Rigorous scientific studies have been disproving the link between marijuana and all manner of negative behaviors for decades and it hasn't changed the reaction to its use by the authorities one jot. The reason we crack down on marijuana isn't because it's a nuisance; it's because lots of people make lots of money from doing so.

Jubeebee:ExperianScaresCthulhu: Heron: Rigorous scientific studies have been disproving the link between marijuana and all manner of negative behaviors for decades and it ...

/i think users are losers//but there's worse out there

The tobacco companies don't want to see legal weed because it's really easy to grow enough behind your garage for personal use. They can't get a cut if they aren't part of distribution.

Big brewers and distillers don't want to see legal weed because drunk and high are essentially interchangeable types of intoxication, and it's in their best interests to limit recreational drugs that could be alternatives to alcohol.

Cotton growers don't want to see legal weed because legalizing marijuana means hemp can proliferate, which can make cheap and durable clothing at a fraction of the price of cotton.

There is a lot of money at stake, and a lot of people interested in preserving the status quo. Only if/when governments get desperate enough for additional tax revenue will marijuana sales be legalized.

I'm pretty sure that the pharmaceutical industry and police unions are a big part of that resistance also. Weed is a fantastic pain killer that you can grow in your yard.

No idea why police unions care so much. But they've never provided much reasoning for any of the assholish things they do on a regular basis.

Jubeebee:Big brewers and distillers don't want to see legal weed because drunk and high are essentially interchangeable types of intoxication, and it's in their best interests to limit recreational drugs that could be alternatives to alcohol.

Except they're not, at all. The chemistry, physiology and degree and type of impairment are drastically different.

I have a stupid question -- once upon a time, everyone spelled the word "whoa". Now, no one spells it the old way, apparently we've all adopted the spelling conventions that semi-retarded 13 year olds use. But enough editorial opinion, I'm mostly curious about timeframes.

I know this happened in the last 25 years or so. Is there a free tool on the web somewhere that plots the frequency of word usage, sort of a Lexis-Nexis or Google Trends kind of thing? Thanks.

Oh, I forgot, Pot got popular back when the youth told the government to go fark itself.

/Now the younger generation is too busy voting for the fat chick on American Idol

You missed it by about 40 years.

Pot/Weed/Hemp has been illegal since the 1920s, when laws were passed banning the possession without a permit, and possession required to get a permit. It was backed partly by growers of cotton and makers of newspulp as hemp threatened those industries with a competing product.

I was clicking around on youtube last night and found an interesting legalize weed video.

It was a bit of conspiracy, but it brought up a great point. something like:

It is not the governments job to protect your from alcohol, or cigarettes, or guns, or people with guns, or driving too fast without a seatbelt, it is not the governments job to protect you from yourself. They generally do not care what you do to yourself, however they chose to make marijuana illegal. Do you wonder why?

Because of all the uses of hemp. And the threat it posed to so many American industries.

It went on about rope and clothing and a fuel for cars. It was interesting.

We've talked about this 1000 times on here though so this is all pretty obvious propaganda to us now...but people still buy the lies.

Oh, I forgot, Pot got popular back when the youth told the government to go fark itself.

/Now the younger generation is too busy voting for the fat chick on American Idol

No, it goes back way farther than that. For a long time, all newspapers in the US were printed on hemp paper. Newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst bought huge tracks of timberland in the West, with a mind to corner the market with wood-based newsprint. But to do that, he had to rid himself of competition from the cheaper (and less polluting) hemp newsprint. So he paid off the right people and the government began a public "education" campaign to tell people how dangerous marijuana is. The movie Reefer Madness was actually produced for and by the government. One of the scare tactics was that pot was very popular with the Colored and it drove them to want to rape white women and commit other heinous crimes. Before long an outraged public demanded action and pot was outlawed. Since that time, the alcohol industry has vehemently opposed the legalization or decriminalization of pot.

Oh, I forgot, Pot got popular back when the youth told the government to go fark itself.

/Now the younger generation is too busy voting for the fat chick on American Idol

You missed it by about 40 years.

Pot/Weed/Hemp has been illegal since the 1920s, when laws were passed banning the possession without a permit, and possession required to get a permit. It was backed partly by growers of cotton and makers of newspulp as hemp threatened those industries with a competing product.

The whole "War on drugs" thing is a new spin on the same old laws.

Still missing a lot of the story. Was back partly by cotton growers, yes, but mostly by LA Sheriffs wanting an excuse to close down black jazz clubs and by midwestern and western congressmen wanting an excuse to deport hispanics.

Of course, nowhere in any of that is there any mention of health side-effects being a reason, and in fact the AMA was blocked from testifying in the hearings leading up to the bans.

/but I've been told that ignorant people voting for ignorant policies has no effect on me, so it must be something else...

Care to elaborate on this outrageous assertion? Specifically how less criminal activity will equate to more criminal activity.

Before the dispensary most weed buyers had to travel into the bad parts of town to buy weed from those that lived there. With the dispensaries the weed buyers no long need to take such risks such as being robbed or even arrested while buying weed. That's great for the buyers but what about the guy who sold it illegally ? He sees his customer base vanish and his own income with it. He needs to make up for the loss some other way. Most likely by selling a different (and by most measures a "worse") drug or some other kind of criminal activity.

Care to elaborate on this outrageous assertion? Specifically how less criminal activity will equate to more criminal activity.

Before the dispensary most weed buyers had to travel into the bad parts of town to buy weed from those that lived there. With the dispensaries the weed buyers no long need to take such risks such as being robbed or even arrested while buying weed. That's great for the buyers but what about the guy who sold it illegally ? He sees his customer base vanish and his own income with it. He needs to make up for the loss some other way. Most likely by selling a different (and by most measures a "worse") drug or some other kind of criminal activity.

I'm not sure if you've been to a dispensary in LA, but the area that they are is no different from the area drugs are being sold on the street for the most part

Care to elaborate on this outrageous assertion? Specifically how less criminal activity will equate to more criminal activity.

Before the dispensary most weed buyers had to travel into the bad parts of town to buy weed from those that lived there. With the dispensaries the weed buyers no long need to take such risks such as being robbed or even arrested while buying weed. That's great for the buyers but what about the guy who sold it illegally ? He sees his customer base vanish and his own income with it. He needs to make up for the loss some other way. Most likely by selling a different (and by most measures a "worse") drug or some other kind of criminal activity.

Eh, no. A lot of the dealers I've, eh, heard of, just got their medical MJ card, buy it up there and then resell it to people who can't be bothered to get one.

Digital Communist:Jubeebee: ExperianScaresCthulhu: Heron: Rigorous scientific studies have been disproving the link between marijuana and all manner of negative behaviors for decades and it ...

/i think users are losers//but there's worse out there

The tobacco companies don't want to see legal weed because it's really easy to grow enough behind your garage for personal use. They can't get a cut if they aren't part of distribution.

Big brewers and distillers don't want to see legal weed because drunk and high are essentially interchangeable types of intoxication, and it's in their best interests to limit recreational drugs that could be alternatives to alcohol.

Cotton growers don't want to see legal weed because legalizing marijuana means hemp can proliferate, which can make cheap and durable clothing at a fraction of the price of cotton.

There is a lot of money at stake, and a lot of people interested in preserving the status quo. Only if/when governments get desperate enough for additional tax revenue will marijuana sales be legalized.

I'm pretty sure that the pharmaceutical industry and police unions are a big part of that resistance also. Weed is a fantastic pain killer that you can grow in your yard.

No idea why police unions care so much. But they've never provided much reasoning for any of the assholish things they do on a regular basis.

Big Pharma spends millions (if not billions) of dollars every year in "donations to fight the war on drugs". They do not care about anything other than pot because they cannot make money on a drug that can be easily grown in your own yard.

I would be shocked if marijuana is ever legalized on a Federal level. If the police unions are "caring" about the legalization, it's because they are also getting money to keep it illegal.

This is something I am aware of because of my personal experience. I don't smoke the stuff, but I fully support making it legal.

Garm:I guess it depends on the management or the locale... We had one for a while until the Feds mashed their dinner. The strip mall it was in was marginal already. It had a CVS which was safe enough and a usual assortment of stores...Papa John's, Hollywood Video, BofA. Two of the stores were dollar stores. So not upscale by any means.

While the dispensary was there I would compare the folks shambling about as similar to a seedy Liquor Store. Cars got broken into, store windows were occasionally broken. Correlation vs causation, who knows, I live in a town full of assholes and this was probably just a convergence point. It shifted my opinion of dispensaries quite a bit though.

Care to elaborate on this outrageous assertion? Specifically how less criminal activity will equate to more criminal activity.

Before the dispensary most weed buyers had to travel into the bad parts of town to buy weed from those that lived there. With the dispensaries the weed buyers no long need to take such risks such as being robbed or even arrested while buying weed. That's great for the buyers but what about the guy who sold it illegally ? He sees his customer base vanish and his own income with it. He needs to make up for the loss some other way. Most likely by selling a different (and by most measures a "worse") drug or some other kind of criminal activity.

Eh, no. A lot of the dealers I've, eh, heard of, just got their medical MJ card, buy it up there and then resell it to people who can't be bothered to get one.

so basically the medical part of medical marijuana is a joke, and is intended to be a joke, with only lip service to public health. mostly, it's just about folks wanting to get high on something the same way the same folks would get a buzz from alcohol or get a feeling of 'urge sated' from tobacco?

/if marijuana was banned because of its association with mexican indians...//what does it say that it will only get unbanned because of its association with whites?